Post by: timemachine on 25/03/2018 00:36:06
My view may not be the truth, but it is my current best viewpoint regarding the question about whether the universe is finite or infinite that has been teasing mankind for millennia.
However, humanity is audacious enough to offer opinions on anything, so here is my current audacious view of a possible reality.
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity. We humans are very good at mixing and getting the observed confused with our innate thoughts as the observer.
Therefore, I will, up front, state my opinion that time is not a real physical thing and is a mental concept that we have adopted to explain relative motion and all of it's ramifications.
Further, without this concept we cannot understand anything because all memories and events in our lives are at their root a product of motion.
We need to guard against this mental danger at every possible opportunity, otherwise, we are at risk of following virtually any poorly founded path.
At this point I need to return to the previously stated point that " some things, even physical things, are Unknowable" and therefore we venture out of the realm of physics into the realm of physics philosophy when we trek upon the path of proposing the primary constituents of the universe.
Here is a description of "My Universe" which is squarely, I think, within the physics philosophy realm:
My Universe is everything that is, and is both eternal and infinite as a whole. However, it exists as a dichotomy of two distinct parts that are absolute opposites that, therefore, mutually define each other. The first part is an absolutely pure, cohesive, indivisible, finite energy bubble, that is eternally located at the center of the universe, primarily because it is cohesive, and contains constantly transforming energy sub forms of differing densities and properties which are eternally surrounded by the second part that is an absolutely pure zero energy void, excluding space which is a sub form of energy. The energy part expands and contracts in volume according to the changing percentages of each energy sub form but the quantity of energy is constant and finite. This perspective avoids extending energy to infinity but still allows the universe "as a whole" to be infinite and provides for a philosophically logical whole. I, certainly, do not intend, or expect, this perspective to be taken as a view that can be accepted by the standards of real physics which require quantifiable measurements.
In addition, I think, this description of entropy is consistent with the physics philosophy previously expressed:
I think, the description of the entropy evolution of the energy part of our universe from a low entropy pre big bang through an ever increasing entropy until there becomes a dissipation of most, if not all, particles into the high entropy of space energy, seems to make sense. The transformation of a low entropy hot energy universe into a high entropy cold energy universe seems to be a very slow, volume increasing, process. It's transformation from the ultimate high entropy state to a hot low entropy state is, I suspect, very fast. Once the energy part of the universe becomes nothing but the energy of empty space, ( assuming that to be the lowest density form of energy that can expand in volume no further, at this point entropy reaches an inherent maximum ) then, it has only one direction to proceed which is to decrease in volume into a hot low entropy state which explodes with a big bang followed by another half cycle of subsequent entropy increase. Then it bounces back and forth eternally.
Regards,
Post by: evan_au on 25/03/2018 03:49:38
Quote from: timemachine
I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity. ...If there is no time, then everything is eternal, including the coin in my hand stamped with "2006".
My Universe is everything that is, and is ... eternal
Quote
I will, up front, state my opinion that time is not a real physical thing and is a mental concept that we have have adopted to explain relative motion and all of it's ramifications.It is true that the "2006" on the coin is mental: a number in my mind.
But it is also physical: an imprint on the coin, which was formed by a moving metal press in the mint.
Quote
entropy evolution"Entropy evolution" implies time.
The Greek philosopher Zeno toyed with some ideas like this - that there was no such thing as time or motion.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea
No matter how good he was as a philosopher, he failed as a mathematician - he could not imagine that adding an infinite quantity of things (no matter how small) could amount to a finite quantity.
Post by: timemachine on 25/03/2018 17:26:17
If there is no time, then everything is eternal, including the coin in my hand stamped with "2006".Absolutely true!
It is true that the "2006" on the coin is mental: a number in my mind.The physical coin and it's number were formed by motions and, as such, are a record of those motions. In observing the physical coin our minds concoct a mental image of where this record fits in a mental serial sequence of other events that are also records created by motions. This mental process is our concept of time by which we attempt to gain more understanding of the record under consideration. This process which itself is dependent on motions within our brain creates more records that are a part of our brains goal of understanding.
But it is also physical: an imprint on the coin, which was formed by a moving metal press in the mint.
"Entropy evolution" implies time.Actually, entropy implies and is directly associated with motion which is a real physical thing. Therefore, I agree with Zeno that time is not a physical thing, however, motion is. It is we the observer of the motions that are associated with the ideas of entropy that inject an implication of time because the time concept is a part of our mental method to attempt to understand motion.
The Greek philosopher Zeno toyed with some ideas like this - that there was no such thing as time or motion.
No matter how good he was as a philosopher, he failed as a mathematician - he could not imagine that adding an infinite quantity of things (no matter how small) could amount to a finite quantity.I agree with Zeno that adding an infinite quantity of anything will never achieve a finite result because an infinite process is automatically a process that will be eternal in that it can never end. This conclusion has everything to do with logic and adding but nothing to do with any higher mathematics.
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 14:08:51
Consider for a moment that infinity is a state, which essentially defines raw space. When I say raw, I mean it is physically not a part of our reality. This raw space I consider infinity. Infinity to me implies motion. It's that edge you reach out to touch, but it always keeps drifting just out of reach. It just keeps going endlessly while trying to find maximum scale or resolution. And that's a two way street leading in and out. It is the vastness and the nothingness simultaneously defining each other in a codependent manner. The further out it stretches, the closer to nothing it gets, but it's never able to become everything and nothing in the process, so it just keeps going.
It is the two halves of infinity that drive existence. Infinity is the engine of creation, not a concept in the minds of mankind, but not physically part of our reality at the same time. Infinity flows through us, and we are a finite, and a perpetual reflection of the greater process. We are simultaneously expanding and contracting, for a net gain of 0.
I imagine the rate of the process as constant, blossoming out in a spherical manner, so the volume grows at an exponential rate, and the potential to be nothing grows at the inverse rate. V=4/3*π*r^3*C^2
The cosmos exists between this infinite process in a perpetual manner.
The only place we differ is location. I consider there are an infinitely rising number of universes, and we're a mere speck of dust in the aftermath of the process. One of countless.
" some things, even physical things, are Unknowable"
I would also have to disagree with this statement. Everything in my view is knowable. There's an answer for everything. It's the verification process where we run into trouble. We can't validate every single hypothesis with physical evidence, so we have to eventually trust our logic and reasoning on the problem.
Here's another idea that will bake your noodle...
I contemplate a perpetual universe continually going through this process of creation and inhalation. A perpetual series of big bangs. They're all bound together in the evolution of our universe, like a string of pearls. Our concept of time, which is really rooted in a physical awareness of past events, while predicting future events, is simply bound to this string of pearls. We remember past events, because we have lived past events. When we experience an event in the present, it binds that event to the past pearl strand event forming a cohesive memory, in an entanglement process. We can never know exactly what the future holds for us because the future event is still unbound to a past pearl strand event in the present, so future events are a bit more cloudy, or uncertain. Maybe Deja Vu is a bit more real than we give it credit for.
The universe is mind boggling... So many possibilities, so little time to explore them all...
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 16:05:16
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.
Post by: timemachine on 26/03/2018 17:06:51
Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 00:36:06Obviously, I have failed to explain anything about the universe TO YOU. That, in my opinion, is because you seem to be hung up on insisting that time is a physical reality in spite of the lack of any physical evidence. As you know, I think time is just a mental concept that helps us to understand the dynamics of motion and thereby helps us understand EVERYTHING.
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.
Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 17:16:13
Well I do not think anything , the objective facts are there to observe. Are you suggesting things do not physically age?Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 00:36:06Obviously, I have failed to explain anything about the universe TO YOU. That, in my opinion, is because you seem to be hung up on insisting that time is a physical reality in spite of the lack of any physical evidence. As you know, I think time is just a mental concept that helps us to understand the dynamics of motion and thereby helps us understand EVERYTHING.
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.
Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.
Evidence of time.
Time is a quantifiable measurement of a duration of existence. A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body. Additionally a duration of existence can be cut short by unforeseen events, like the poor snowman I built the other week was unlucky the sun come out or ''he'' would still be there.
You are mistaking space-time which is timeless, to actual time which is dependent to any bodies change of entropy .
Time is entropy , entropy is existing, entropy has frequency of change that is a variate.
You do not believe in time because it as never been explained correctly to you before now. Physics explains time is its measurement, a really poor explanation.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 17:22:44
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 17:25:02
ext1.jpg (16.32 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2947 times)Don't let ''them'' tell you otherwise in ''their'' subjective lies.
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 17:33:36
A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body.
If we're looking at things objectively, this statement is subjective. We do not have any physical evidence as to the duration of existence within gravity wells. Clocks rates change, that's true. We aren't clocks. Beyond that, it's anyone's best guess at this point. Objectively, the answer is unknown in physics. I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless. Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 17:38:17
A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body.
If we're looking at things objectively, this statement is subjective. We do not have any physical evidence as to the duration of existence within gravity wells. Clocks rates change, that's true. We aren't clocks. Beyond that, it's anyone's best guess at this point. Objectively, the answer is unknown in physics. I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless. Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.
More to do with entropy than gravity and also burning up in the stars example. Us for example could not exist if we were close to the sun, we would have never been born. If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.
Δt = var (x) time can change in many ways .
All things are clocks.
added - I should of put star or body, was just trying to distinguish between a star and a earth
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 17:54:18
I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless. Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.
That was a joke. Yes, you'd be a crispy critter.
If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.
I do not agree nor disagree with the statement. We have no physical evidence to claim this is fact, or science fiction. Objectively, it's still in the hypothesis or theoretical stages. It has not been confirmed that gravity would have any impact on our longevity or age. The frequency in Cesium atoms changes. That's confirmed. Does frequency in matter correlate to physical aging? Will be interesting to see when we have the technological ability to find out. I suspect it will personally, but speaking objectively, the answer is unknown.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:06:32
It has not been confirmed that gravity would have any impact on our longevity or age.I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand. The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:08:39
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 18:09:32
If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.
Isn't that the other way around? The observers hanging back in the ship, while you took the shuttle pod into the stars gravity well, those observes would be the ones doing the aging at a high rate of speed. Your clock slows at the bottom of the well relative to those hanging back in the ship.
It gets so dang confusing, I can't keep it straight sometimes...
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 18:13:20
I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand. The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .
I just ducked... close call... damn near took my head off with that one... So, how them Bears doing this year?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:15:38
Lol it is not confusing, Imagine you are twin two and you start on the bottom circle in the diagram, your frequency of time is a frequency based on the density of the field you are in and thermodynamics etc. Your entropy is synchronised to the rest frame. Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.
Isn't that the other way around? The observers hanging back in the ship, while you took the shuttle pod into the stars gravity well, those observes would be the ones doing the aging at a high rate of speed. Your clock slows at the bottom of the well relative to those hanging back in the ship.
It gets so dang confusing, I can't keep it straight sometimes...
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:19:08
I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand. The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .
I just ducked... close call... damn near took my head off with that one... So, how them Bears doing this year?
What Bears lol?
I could relate that to several questions
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 18:22:07
Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.
I get it. We just don't know if matter frequency means bean dip to the aging process, or our mental perception of time. Frequency changes, and that's all that's been confirmed. We have to re-calibrate clocks in GPS satellites to compensate for SR. A clock is not a person.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:28:31
Indeed I understand that , this is the very reason I had to objectively look at time to give it an exact strict definition that could not be ambiguous. My definition accounts for all the possible variations of time,Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.
I get it. We just don't know if matter frequency means bean dip to the aging process, or our mental perception of time. Frequency changes, and that's all that's been confirmed. We have to re-calibrate clocks in GPS satellites to compensate for SR. A clock is not a person.
Time : A Quantifiable Recorded Measurement , Directly Proportional to a Finite Duration of Existence
Run the truth logic on that definition . It is not what I think it is what time is.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 18:31:07
Directly Proportional True
to a Finite Duration True
of Existence True
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 18:38:01
Post by: timemachine on 26/03/2018 20:51:49
You and I are considering nearly identical paradigms for our universeI agree, and of course the devil is in the details. Now I will embark on an effort to illuminate what appears to me to be our differing details and our agreements. Let us proceed with some noodle baking!!
Consider for a moment that infinity is a state, which essentially defines raw space. When I say raw, I mean it is physically not a part of our reality. This raw space I consider infinity.It appears that your "raw space" is my "Void" and we agree it is not physically real as in being a form of energy, however, it is because of it's absolute lack of energy it can be viewed as infinite or at least potentially infinite. Yes, I like that description better. Your raw space and my void is nothing and as such it exhibits the characteristic of potential infinity. I think we both agree that "space" is a form of energy but then you borrow that term and qualify it with "raw" to make it identical to my "void". To me, borrowing the term "space" has the potential to add confusion in the mind of a reader. Henceforth, I will use the word "void" for you to interpret as "raw space".
It is the two halves of infinity that drive existence. Infinity is the engine of creation, not a concept in the minds of mankind, but not physically part of our reality at the same time. Infinity flows through us, and we are a finite, and a perpetual reflection of the greater process. We are simultaneously expanding and contracting, for a net gain of 0.I reordered this paragraph to precede the other one of yours that follows. To say that infinity can have two halves does not make sense to me. If to be infinite requires the lack of being physical, then I cannot agree that absolute nothing is the engine of creation where creation requires an end that is something. If we can agree that the void is a potential of infinity then, of course it is "not physically part of our reality", but is I think, much more like a mental concept. To say that infinity, which is nothing, "flows" does not make sense to me. To say "we are a finite, and a perpetual reflection of the greater process" also does not make sense to me and seems to be vague. I agree that something like the real physical part of our universe can expand and contract by transforming and not creating or destroying energy.
Infinity to me implies motion. It's that edge you reach out to touch, but it always keeps drifting just out of reach. It just keeps going endlessly while trying to find maximum scale or resolution. And that's a two way street leading in and out. It is the vastness and the nothingness simultaneously defining each other in a codependent manner. The further out it stretches, the closer to nothing it gets, but it's never able to become everything and nothing in the process, so it just keeps going.If something has the property of infinity and thereby is not physically real I do not understand how it can have or imply motion. Using the word "reach", I find too anthropomorphic to describe the motion of non life. Your use of the word "vastness", I feel sure, is describing the physically real energy of our universe and, I agree, that it and the void define "each other in a codependent manner". The "stretches" you refer to is, I think, the "expanding and contracting" mentioned in your previous paragraph that applies to the physically real universe and, if so, we are in agreement.
I imagine the rate of the process as constant, blossoming out in a spherical manner, so the volume grows at an exponential rate, and the potential to be nothing grows at the inverse rate. V=4/3*π*r^3*C^2I agree with the use of the word "spherical" but I do not see the "blossoming" meaning expanding as being linearly constant. Likewise with the contracting.
The cosmos exists between this infinite process in a perpetual manner.I assume that this statement could be rewritten to say "The universe expands and contracts in volume eternally but its total energy is constant."
The only place we differ is location. I consider there are an infinitely rising number of universes, and we're a mere speck of dust in the aftermath of the process. One of countless.Here, we disagree completely. I see our universe to be true to the definition of the word to be ONE and not multiple. I think this view is consistent with the common physics position that gravity has no range limit and if the universe is eternal then it's end state must be one.
Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 00:36:06Everything that we can know is dependent on our observations to which we apply "our logic and reasoning" and this results in a "sea of probabilities" pertaining to everything. This means that we can depend on virtually nothing to be absolutely 100 percent known. Newton might have thought he knew everything about motion until Einstein arrived.
" some things, even physical things, are Unknowable"
I would also have to disagree with this statement. Everything in my view is knowable. There's an answer for everything. It's the verification process where we run into trouble. We can't validate every single hypothesis with physical evidence, so we have to eventually trust our logic and reasoning on the problem.
Our observations have physical limitations that block our path to knowledge. The speed of electromagnetic energy limits our access to the universe and it's history. The CERN particle accelerator technology is the current limit to access the very small and if improved we will be at a different limit and eventually we will be totally blocked from observing anything smaller.
Here's another idea that will bake your noodle...Yeah but, surely you did not really mean "creation" and annihilation. I think you meant "expands" and "contracts" as you previously stated.
I contemplate a perpetual universe continually going through this process of creation and inhalation. A perpetual series of big bangs. They're all bound together in the evolution of our universe, like a string of pearls.
Our concept of time, which is really rooted in a physical awareness of past events, while predicting future events, is simply bound to this string of pearls. We remember past events, because we have lived past events. When we experience an event in the present, it binds that event to the past pearl strand event forming a cohesive memory, in an entanglement process. We can never know exactly what the future holds for us because the future event is still unbound to a past pearl strand event in the present, so future events are a bit more cloudy, or uncertain. Maybe Deja Vu is a bit more real than we give it credit for.YEP !! I think we pretty much in agreement about time as long as you consider it to be a mental concept, not a physical reality, but it is dependent on the physical existence of motion.
The universe is mind boggling... So many possibilities, so little time to explore them all...
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 22:48:07
Yeah but, surely you did not really mean "creation" and annihilation. I think you meant "expands" and "contracts" as you previously stated.
I just like the words in the same sentence, CREATION! ANNIHILATION! They pair well, like a fine wine and cheese. More or less I am referring to a virtual beginning and end, or perpetual big bang. I didn't want to impose my crazy ideas too deeply on your thread, but since you seem a bit confused on my assertions, I think I need to clear things up a bit.
The big bang starts from the opposite side of the spectrum in my view. It's not a condensed ball of energy expanding outwards. Our universe starts at its maximum size, and mass contracts inward. Spacetime I redefine as time-energy. It's basically energy sans space. Space is completely thrown out of the equation as meaningless. The time-energy properties are inverse of mass energy, but they work similar in nature. They repel each other at the inverse square laws. This is also why we can't detect it, because you can't use mass-energy to directly detect time-energy, because they oppose each other like a magnet. This time-energy is all around us, and what we perceive as space. It has various densities. The time that we see in SR is really energy density signatures. For example, at the bottom of a gravity well time may be perceived as 5 seconds, versus 10 seconds at the top of the gravity well. I assume you're familiar with time dilation and how it works. In this case, the time-energy density is double at the top of the gravity well. It is the perceived vacuum of space.
Anyway... Mass-energy is a contractive energy, and time-energy an expansive energy. At the very beginning of the universe, mass-energy dominated. As it contracts inward and cools, it converts directly to time energy. The volume of time-energy has been rising since the beginning, and increasing in density, while mass-energy falls. Eventually, all that will remain is time-energy, and at that very instance, bang. Maybe we'll be left with a single massive black hole? Maybe it's when mass-energy=time-energy? Maybe the blackhole loses it's cohesion and releases all the particles into time-energy? Whole bunch of different possibilities, and I'm not settled on any particular one at this point. The bottom line is, we are not really expanding and accelerating, mass-energy is simply receding against a rising tide of time-energy. The redshift is being caused by the increased time-energy density, slowing light down as mass-energy contracts inward. The end of the universe is the beginning of the universe. There is no dark energy per se, but I suppose you could call time-energy dark energy if you so desired. It's kind of a rolling repetitive process of big bang after big bang, for a sum total of 0. It's all just energy swapping states, until one dominates fully, and then comes crashing down. We are 100% energy. We do not plot courses within space, we plot them within energy. We are finite, but perpetual in nature. Infinity lies outside our perception.
I ran through it as quickly and briefly as I could. Left a lot of the reasoning out. Hope you get it.
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 22:56:45
Our observations have physical limitations that block our path to knowledge.
Our path is never blocked. Knowing everything about the universe is possible, in my view. Verifying everything with absolute certainty and/or physical evidence is not. Yes, our observations are limited and always will be, but the right answer always hangs out there somewhere. There can only be one right answer. It will make sense when we get it right, and we'll know we're right, because they're be no other way it can be logically.
Post by: andreasva on 26/03/2018 23:00:53
Henceforth, I will use the word "void" for you to interpret as "raw space".
Yes, we are in perfect agreement here. Space in its raw form is a void. I worry some will also confuse it with space-time. When you have a void, it is sans dimension. That means there is no scale in either direction that has any meaning. It is as close to everything as it can get, and as close to nothing as it can get, but neither direction has a definable end. The scale of this void is a completely meaningless concept. It's why I consider it not relevant to our 3-D universe. How could we plot spacial coordinates in the void of space? Give me some energy, and now we have something to talk about. That's the problem with the big bang concept which has always bothered bothered. What does condensed mean to a void? Where would it exist? Why would it explode in any particular direction? I know, EXPAND. Blah blah blah.. No way. It's an illogical concept destined to fail eventually.
Post by: timemachine on 26/03/2018 23:58:04
since you seem a bit confused on my assertions, I think I need to clear things up a bit.Obviously, I was confused on your original posting of assertions because there seemed to be similarities. After reading this complete posting I realize that our viewpoints are virtually non overlapping. You only said three things in this post with which I can agree. 1. We are 100% energy. 2. We are finite, but perpetual in nature. 3. Infinity lies outside our perception.
That being the case, I thank you for not going any deeper into your (in your words) "crazy ideas" and that you "Left a lot of the reasoning out". Regards.
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 00:22:16
Quote from: timemachine on Today at 20:51:49You are certainly entitled to your view, as am I. You say" never blocked". I say, blocked right now so that nullifies your "never".
Our observations have physical limitations that block our path to knowledge.
Our path is never blocked. Knowing everything about the universe is possible, in my view.
Further, temporary blockages are inevitable and our puny humanity is not, and in my opinion, will never be adequate to overcome all blockages for eternity. ha ha !! Our days are numbered to a quantity that it is not too difficult to estimate and then we will be extinct. Oh! You think that there is an ultimate possible answer to all questions. Even if that is true, humanity will never see them. Even the possibility of self replicating robots with ever improved intelligence and in possession of
super luminal transportation will not be able to outrun or survive a collapse of the universe. Regards.
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 00:36:28
Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 20:51:49Regards.
Henceforth, I will use the word "void" for you to interpret as "raw space".
"Yes, we are in perfect agreement here. /////////// Give me some energy, and now we have something to talk about. //////////" OKAY but hereafter you seem to shoot out into left field. I do not recall either of us saying anything about 'condensing a void'. or 'void explosion'
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 01:13:10
Time : A Quantifiable Recorded Measurement , Directly Proportional to a Finite Duration of ExistenceGobble Dee Goop !!!
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 01:18:28
Spacetime I redefine as time-energy. It's basically energy sans space. Space is completely thrown out of the equation as meaningless. The time-energy properties are inverse of mass energy, but they work similar in nature. They repel each other at the inverse square laws.MORE Gobble Dee Goop !!! Other that applying that comment to what both you and "Thebox" say about time I will butt-out of your mutual mental (mast#### No, be nice!) confusion conversation on time. Regards.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 08:51:16
Precise and strict definition, if you do not have the ability to understand that is on you, not me.Time : A Quantifiable Recorded Measurement , Directly Proportional to a Finite Duration of ExistenceGobble Dee Goop !!!
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 11:47:33
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 12:14:00
time as a separate dimension does not exist.I agree. My opinion is that time is not a physical reality but is a mental construct that helps us to understand motion. We use a clock, which uses a repetitive motion that is hopefully consistent to quantify this concept by relating other motions relative to the clock motion. Regards.
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 12:15:21
if you do not have the ability to understand that is on youBack at you!!
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 14:27:28
Post by: timemachine on 27/03/2018 15:45:04
To time machine: Einstein used conventional thinking. We had a ruler and a clock. The Earth spins on its axis and that produces one day. As we move toward light speed, the clock slows. So everything was related to time.In my view, t he the slowing of a clock by moving it as a whole has nothing to do with slowing time. I think, this test shows that motion of the whole of something affects the motions of sub components of the whole.
Yesterday was gone but if you could travel faster that light speed C, you could return to yesterday. But that is false.I agree.
The universe of this split second only exists for a tiny amount of time.The universe is in constant motion and its energy, in one for or another is eternal. Motion is a real physical form of energy and time is not because it is a mental construct that helps us understand motion.
Only the memory exists in light, gravitational, and electromagnetic fields. Yet the fields are always changing. Thus we rely upon the photons to carry the memory of the past. The photons travel a certain distance and we use this to produce a time.Physical things, like photons, and other real things can create records that we interpret with our mental time construct. There are many types of records and they all have a persistence which means nothing mote than that they can be erased. When they are erased the the event of the motions that created them is gone. Our memories are records, light from a distant star is a record and, of course, records contain information. Without records there is nothing to create a mental image of the past, we have no direct mental contact with the ever changing now, and the future is just a speculative mental anticipation.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 20:08:50
GG:That sounds good. The bodily processes slow as the speed increases.